If you could use any level of force against an attacker

[nota bene]

Having a soda can thrown at you is not an 'attack'. This is where people are getting this wrong. The OP specifically says "attacked". Attack always implies something abrupt and unexpected, like the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What you're talking about with is an 'assault' which is much different than an attack. An attack is an action verb and it means aggression, a charge or ambush, like a military attack, it's sudden, unexpected and violent. An assault is a noun that describes an action like the soda can being thrown. It's not completely unexpected. Two people might be in a debate and one picks up his soda can and throws it. Or a couple of high school boys start fighting outside and one picks up a rock and hurls it at the other. That's assault, not attack.

Shooting someone in self defense is not something anyone could be charged for. It was a surprise attack. But shooting someone because a guy threw a can at them should be charged with murder. It was an assault, not an attack.

"Assault" isn't an action verb? Someone throwing a soda can at you isn't a surprise?

 

[HumblePi]

"Assault" isn't an action verb? Someone throwing a soda can at you isn't a surprise?

Depends on the circumstance and if you can't distinguish the differences between a person running at you holding a knife and a person throwing a soda can at you then that's on you. I can distinguish the differences between an attack by a man running at you holding a knife and an assault by a soda can being thrown from a distance, and they are vastly different. Have you ever been assaulted? I have. I would recognize being assaulted and being attacked in an instant.

 

[DebateChallenge]

But that's not what I said. Of course, not all attacks are deadly. My point was that if you're a person that's unarmed and taken by a surprise physical attack, the majority of people will feel as though their lives are in danger and react to the attack with that in their mind.

Again that depends. The term "physical attack" is very broad. It can range anywhere from a slap or shove to having a nuke dropped on you, or anything in between.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Having a soda can thrown at you is not an 'attack'. This is where people are getting this wrong. The OP specifically says "attacked". Attack always implies something abrupt and unexpected, like the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What you're talking about with is an 'assault' which is much different than an attack. An attack is an action verb and it means aggression, a charge or ambush, like a military attack, it's sudden, unexpected and violent. An assault is a noun that describes an action like the soda can being thrown. It's not completely unexpected. Two people might be in a debate and one picks up his soda can and throws it. Or a couple of high school boys start fighting outside and one picks up a rock and hurls it at the other. That's assault, not attack.

Shooting someone in self defense is not something anyone could be charged for. It was a surprise attack. But shooting someone because a guy threw a can at them should be charged with murder. It was an assault, not an attack.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary this is the definition of the word "assault"
1. a violent physical or verbal attack
2. a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

Assault | Definition of Assault by Merriam-Webster

 

[Bodi]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

That is why I promote the use of clay-more mines, bungee pits and large boulders released down the staircase at intruders...

 

[Bodi]

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary this is the definition of the word "assault"
1. a violent physical or verbal attack
2. a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

Assault | Definition of Assault by Merriam-Webster

Yes, when attacked verbally, one should be allowed to use any level of lethal force.

 

[d0gbreath]

These threads are always by individuals whom have never been attacked. You'd most likely be blindsided.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

Perhaps.

Perhaps there'd be an uptick in the number "victims" who had to kill their "attacker".

 

[Lursa]

Not necessarily. In Canada and I am sure some jurisdictions in the United States you can only defend yourself with an equal amount of force and can only use lethal force if you legitimately fear for your life. Someone coming at you with a knife, deadly force is perfectly acceptable but if some drunk starts throwing drunken punches at you, no. A drunk may be attacking you but you have no reason to fear for your life.

I understand that, but also consider that no matter what force is initiated, if it escalates...and if they attacked you...why wouldnt you believe that they truly meant to do real harm?...you dont know if they'll stop. Or if they'll incapacitate you (knock you unconscious, for instance) and then you cant defend yourself at all?

 

[Carjosse]

I understand that, but also consider that no matter what force is initiated, if it escalates...and if they attacked you...why wouldnt you believe that they truly meant to do real harm?...you dont know if they'll stop. Or if they'll incapacitate you (knock you unconscious, for instance) and then you cant defend yourself at all?

Does it makes sense to you to answer all threats with deadly force? If the attack escalates then your defense can escalate as well.

 

[Lursa]

Again that depends. The term "physical attack" is very broad. It can range anywhere from a slap or shove to having a nuke dropped on you, or anything in between.

Can you remove yourself from the attack? (retreat, escape, etc) That's a valid point the courts would consider.

It's one of the points that Stand Your Ground is based on.

 

[Lursa]

These threads are always by individuals whom have never been attacked. You'd most likely be blindsided.

Exactly. Predators pick the time and place to their advantage.

And if it's not that kind of scenario, then it's likely you already know or are already interacting with the individual. You may have some accountability for the confrontation. Making it black and white gets difficult.

 

[Lursa]

Does it makes sense to you to answer all threats with deadly force? If the attack escalates then your defense can escalate as well.

It makes sense to me to retreat if at all possible. And then apply whatever level of force is needed to *stop* the threat.

 

[radioman]

That is why I promote the use of clay-more mines, bungee pits and large boulders released down the staircase at intruders...

All excellent options.
I think I'll re-watch the "Home Alone" movies.
Macaulay Culkin kicks ass !!!

 

[Casper]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

But you can, so.....

 

[radioman]

You'd most likely be blindsided.

Oh, pish-tosh.
If blindsided, one simply performs a triple somersault followed by a series of cartwheels while simultaneously shooting at your attacker(s).
Works for John Wick.....eat lead punks.

 

[Bodi]

All excellent options.
I think I'll re-watch the "Home Alone" movies.
Macaulay Culkin kicks ass !!!

My post started out too serious so I went Indiana Jones for the last deterrent... but we should all remember to keep our options open and be sure to apply lethal force whenever possible. Take Home Alone... he hits them with water balloons in one scene, I think... replace water with alcohol and then throw matches at their faces. :lol:

Think of the laughs that could have gotten!

 

[Bodi]

The best way to not get attacked is to attack first... that way, you are always one step ahead...

Just remember to apply as much lethal force as possible...

 

[Bodi]

Oh, pish-tosh.
If blindsided, one simply performs a triple somersault followed by a series of cartwheels while simultaneously shooting at your attacker(s).
Works for John Wick.....eat lead punks.

The Shaolin Crazy Monkey Routine is fail-safe...

 

[radioman]

The Shaolin Crazy Monkey Routine is fail-safe...

I'm gonna try it next time I go to the gun club.
I'll let you know how it worked out after I'm released from the hospital.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

But that doesn't make sense. Who can possibly determine what an 'equal amount of force is' ? If a 110 pound female gets attacked with a choke hold from behind her from a 210 pound 6 ft tall male and he ends up dead, who determines whether that was an 'equal amount of force' if this 110 pound woman happened to be a cage fighter with MMA and put that guy away with two blows to his throat? Circumstances are unique for each situation but I assume that any situation in which a person is physically attacked, they have to assume they feel their life is in jeopardy.

equal force as a legal concept means "equal level of force" not the exact same manner of force.

a man attacking a woman is a deadly force attack, thus deadly force may be used, at least in most places in the US.

 

[DebateChallenge]

That is why I promote the use of clay-more mines, bungee pits and large boulders released down the staircase at intruders...

With the exceptions of the boulders rolled down the staircase, the problem with the other stuff is that it can hurt innocent bystanders.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Yes, when attacked verbally, one should be allowed to use any level of lethal force.

No, only when being physically attacked.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Can you remove yourself from the attack? (retreat, escape, etc) That's a valid point the courts would consider.

It's one of the points that Stand Your Ground is based on.

If Im attacked in a public place I shouldn't have to run because I have as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

 

[Bodi]

With the exceptions of the boulders rolled down the staircase, the problem with the other stuff is that it can hurt innocent bystanders.

If they are on my property without permission then they are not innocent.

No, only when being physically attacked.

If I am being verbally attacked then I fear for my safety because verbal attack is the stepping stone to physical attack... and in that situation I physically attack the verbal attacker for self-defense.